2.docx

8
Pages

47
Views

Unlock Document

School

York University

Department

Management

Course

MGMT 1040

Professor

William(bill) Woof

Semester

Winter

Description

Moral Issues in Business: Chapter 2 – Normative Theories of Ethics
• Chapter discusses normative perspectives and rival ethical principles that are our
heritage
Pros and cons relating to moral decision making in an organizational context:
1. Egoism, both as an ethical theory and as a psychological theory
2. Utilitarianism, the theory that the morally right action is the one that achieves the
greatest total amount of happiness for everyone concerned
3. Kant’s ethics, with his categorical imperative and his emphasis on moral motivation
and respect for persons
4. Other nonconsequentialist normative themes: duties, moral rights, and prima facie
principles
CONSEQUENTIALIST AND NONCONSEQUENTIALIST THEORIES
• Normative theories propose some principle or principles for distinguishing right
actions from wrong actions
o There theories are divided into consequentialist and nonconsequentialist
• Moral theorists argue that the moral rightness of an action is determined solely by its
results; if its consequences are good, then act is right; if they are bad, the act is
wrong
o These moral theorists are called consequentialists
o Determine what is right by weighing the ratio of good to bad that an action
produces
• Two most important consequentialist theories are egoism and utilitarianism
• Egoism advocated individual self-interest as its guiding principle
• Utilitarianism holds that one must take into account everyone affected by the action
• Nonconsequentialist (or deontological) theories contend that right and wrong are
determined by more than the likely consequences of an action
• These theorists do not necessarily deny that consequences are morally significant,
but they believe that other factors are also relevant to the moral assessment of an
action
Egoism
• The view that equates morality with self-interest is egoism
• Contends that an act is morally right if and only if it best promotes the agent’s own
long-term interests (“agent” can be a single person or an organization)
• Use their best long-term advantage as the standard for measuring action’s rightness
• Two kinds of egoism: personal and impersonal
o Personal: claim they should pursue their own best long-term interests, but
they do not say what others should do
o Impersonal: claim that everyone should follow his or her best long-term
interests
Misconceptions about Egoism • One is that egoists do only what they like, that they believe in “eat, drink, and be
merry” – not so.
o Undergoing unpleasant, even painful, experience would be consistent with
egoism, provided that such temporary sacrifice is necessary for the
advancement of one’s long-term interests
• Another misconception is that all egoists endorse hedonism, the view that pleasure
(or happiness) is the only thing that is good in itself
• Final misconception is that egoists cannot act honestly, be gracious and helpful, or
otherwise promote other people’s interests
o Egoism, however, requires us to do whatever will best further our own
interests
o In particular, egoism tells us to benefit others, if we expect that our doing so
will be reciprocated, or that the act will bring us pleasure
Psychological Egoism
• Followers of egoism generally attempt to derive their basic moral principle from the
alleged fact that human beings are by nature selfish creatures
o Termed psychological egoism, people are, as a matter of fact, so constructed
that they must behave selfishly
o Psychological egoism asserts that all actions are selfishly motivated and that
truly unselfish actions are impossible
Problems with Egoism
1. Psychological egoism is not a sound theory. Self-interest motivates all of us to some
extent, and we all know of situations in which someone pretended to be acting
morally but was really only motivated by self-interest – theory of psychological
egoism contends self-interest is the only that ever motivates anyone.
2. Ethical egoism is not really a moral theory at all. Many critics of egoism as an ethical
standard contend that it misunderstands the nature and point of morality. Morality
serves to restrain our purely self-interested desires so we can all live together. If our
interests never came into conflict – that is, if it were never advantageous for one
person to deceive or cheat another – then we would have no need for morality.
3. Ethical egoism ignores blatant wrongs. The most common objection to egoism as an
ethical doctrine is that by reducing everything to the standard of best long-term self-
interest, egoism takes no stand against such seemingly immoral acts as theft,
murder, racial and sexual discrimination, deliberately false advertising, and wanton
pollution. All such actions are morally neutral until the test of self-interest is applied.
UTILITARIANISM
• Is the moral doctrine that we should always act to produce the greatest possible
balance of good over bad for everyone affected by our actions.
o “Good”, utilitarians understand happiness or pleasure. Thus, the greatest
happiness of all constitutes the standard that determines whether an action is
right or wrong
• Earlier thinkers, Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832) and John Stuart Mill (1806-1873)
were first to develop the theory o Used the utilitarian standard to evaluate and criticize the social and political
institutions of their day
Six Points about Utilitarianism
1. When deciding which action will produce the greatest happiness, we must consider
unhappiness or pain as well as happiness.
2. Actions affect different people to different degrees.
3. Because utilitarians evaluate actions according to their consequences, and actions
produce different results in difference circumstances, almost anything might, in
principle, be morally right in some particular circumstance.
4. Utilitarians wish to maximize happiness not simply immediately but in the long run as
well.
5. Utilitarians acknowledge that we often do not know with certainty what the future
consequences of our actions will be.
6. When choosing among possible actions, utilitarianism does not require use to
disregard our own pleasure. Nor should we give it added weight. Rather, our own
pleasure and pain enter into the calculus equally with the pleasures and pains of
others.
Utilitarianism in an Organizational Context
• Utilitarianism provides a clear and straightforward basis for formulating and testing
policies. By utilitarian standards, an organizational policy, decision, or action is good
if it promotes the general welfare more than any other alternative.
• Secondly, it provides an objective and attractive way of resolving conflicts of self-
interest
o This feature of utilitarianism dramatically contrasts with egoism, which seems
incapable of resolving such conflicts
• Lastly, utilitarianism provides a flexible, result-oriented approach to moral decision
making By recognizing no actions of a general kind as inherently right or wrong,
utilitarianism encourages organizations to focus on the results of their actions and
policies, and it allows them to tailor decisions to suit complexities of their situations.
Critical Inquiries of Utilitarianism
1. Is utilitarianism really workable? Utilitarianism instructs us to maximize happiness,
but in difficult cases we may be very uncertain about the likely results of the
alternative courses of action open to us.
2. Are some actions wrong, even if they produce good? Utilitarianism focuses on the
results of an action, not on the character of the action itself.
3. Is utilitarianism unjust? Utilitarianism concerns itself with the sum total of happiness
produced, not with how that happiness is distributed. If policy X brings two units of
happiness to each of five people and policy Y brings nine units of happiness to one
person, one unit each to two others, and none to the remaining two, then Y is to be
preferred (eleven units of happiness versus ten), even though it distributes that
happiness very unequally.
The Interplay Between Self-Interest and Utility • Self-interest and utility play important roles in organizational decisions, and the
views of many businesspeople blend these two theories
o To the extent that each business pursues its own interests and each
businessperson tries to maximize personal success, business practice can be
called egoistic
• Adam Smith held such a classical capitalist economist view:
o Every individual is continually exerting himself to find out the most
advantageous employment for whatever capital he can command
o As every individual, therefore, endeavours as much as he can to employ his
capital
• Many would agree with Smith, conceding that business is part of a social system
that cooperation is necessary, and that certain competitive ground rules are needed
and should be followed. At the same time, they would argue that the social system is
best served by the active pursuit of self-interest within the context of established
rules.
KANT’S ETHICS
• German philosopher Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) provides an excellent example of a
thoroughly nonconsequentialist approach to ethics
• Kant sought moral principles that do not rest on contingencies and that define
actions as inherently right or wrong apart from any particular circumstances. He
believed that moral rules can, in principle, be known as a result of reason alone and
are not based on observation
• His theory holds that we do not have to know anything about the likely results of my
telling a lie to my boss in order to know that it is immoral
Good Will
• Such laws in effect give legal protection to the humanitarian impulse behind
emergency interventions
• Formally recognize interventionist’s heart was in the right place, that the person’s
intention was irreproachable
• The widely observable human tendency to introduce a person’s intentions in
assigning blame or praise is a good springboard for engaging Kant’s ethics
• Kant believed that their goodness depends on the will that makes use of them.
Intelligence for instance is not good when used by an evil person
• By will Kant meant the uniquely human capacity to act from principle
• Contained in the notion of good will is the concept of duty: only when we act from
duty does our action have moral worth. When we act only out of feeling, inclination,
or self-interest, our actions – although they may be otherwise identical with the ones
that